Spoilers for Friday 7th April 2023 (Series 87, Heat 55

[Peter Thomas]

Surely the latest anyone has got the conundrum right. (Does anyone know any different?)

[Steve Hyde]

From the Ask Graeme thread:

Found a couple recorded as 30s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4419 and this wonderfully ironic entry http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_761)

Also a couple of 29.75s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5293 and http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5326) and a 29.9 after an incorrect 29s buzz (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5050)

[Peter Thomas]

From the Ask Graeme thread:

Found a couple recorded as 30s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_4419 and this wonderfully ironic entry http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_761)

Also a couple of 29.75s (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5293 and http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5326) and a 29.9 after an incorrect 29s buzz (http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_5050)

Thanks Steve. THWARTING is pretty ironic too given the scoreline...

[Gavin Chipper]

HURRIEDLY pretty ironic. Also MARQUETRY was got at the opposite end of the timescale to PARQUETRY.

[Toby McDonald]

ANGULOSE in R4

R6 LNAFP: (10*7+4-3)*2 = 142

[Stewart Gordon]

What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

[Stewart Gordon]

Interesting story about the 99. I recall it being covered on Balderdash and Piffle (presented by Victoria Coren as she was known back then - now best known for doing Only Connect), if I remember correctly.

One of the ideas mentioned on that programme is of "IC", for "ice cream", being reinterpreted as a Roman numeral. But this was rejected on the basis that the person responsible would have known 99 in Roman numerals is XCIX, not IC. I'm not sure that that's valid, as said person could still have pretended 99 could be IC.

(As an aside, I'm puzzled at why IC isn't valid. I get the impression that Roman numerals derive from a way of marking tally sticks, whereby 17 would be IIIIVIIIIXIIIIVII, shortened to XVII. Furthermore, apparently 'subtractive' notation is actually ordinal in origin (IX meaning "the I just before the X" rather than "I subtracted from X"). But by that argument, IC should be valid.)

[Adam Dexter]

(As an aside, I'm puzzled at why IC isn't valid. I get the impression that Roman numerals derive from a way of marking tally sticks, whereby 17 would be IIIIVIIIIXIIIIVII, shortened to XVI. Furthermore, apparently 'subtractive' notation is actually ordinal in origin (IX meaning "the I just before the X" rather than "I subtracted from X"). But by that argument, IC should be valid.)

I could be entirely wrong here, but I always thought that you couldn't subtract a number more than one magnitude smaller than the number you're subtracting from.

1999 is not IM as you have all manner of numerals between I and M (VXLCD). It is instead MCMXCIX (which is what would show at the end of programmes of the time).

I am by no means an expert, and have dangerously not researched this, so feel free to shoot me down.

[Philip A]

What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

I agree that they should always show the relevant dictionary page to clarify definitions and contexts, like they used to with the pen-cam.

MATEY and MATY are in fact given as nouns and not exclamations. The plurals are not explicitly listed (a problem with most dictionaries), but Googling suggests that MATEYS and MATIES (as in pirate speak) are fine and therefore should be allowed, whilst ‘matys’ would look odd and ‘matie’ isn’t a word at all.


Definition of matey in English:

matey
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪti/
(also maty)
British English informal
NOUN

Used as a familiar form of address to a man:
don't worry, matey, it 's all part of my plan
that 's my seat, matey
More example sentences
ADJECTIVE (matier, matiest)

Familiar and friendly; sociable:
a matey grin
More example sentences
Derivatives

mateyness
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪtɪnɪs/
(also matiness)
NOUN


Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid. The dictionary should always be followed. So for example, EUREKAS is valid – eureka moments are eurekas – but ‘wilcos’ and ‘cheerios’ are not valid as the dictionary does not give ‘as noun’ contexts.

Separately, recently suggested ‘paralyze’ is not valid as -YZE is the US spelling. I see no evidence that suggests -YZE is the original.

[Fiona T]

What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

I agree that they should always show the relevant dictionary page to clarify definitions and contexts, like they used to with the pen-cam.

MATEY and MATY are in fact given as nouns and not exclamations. The plurals are not explicitly listed (a problem with most dictionaries), but Googling suggests that MATEYS and MATIES (as in pirate speak) are fine and therefore should be allowed, whilst ‘matys’ would look odd and ‘matie’ isn’t a word at all.


Definition of matey in English:

matey
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪti/
(also maty)
British English informal
NOUN

Used as a familiar form of address to a man:
don't worry, matey, it 's all part of my plan
that 's my seat, matey
More example sentences
ADJECTIVE (matier, matiest)

Familiar and friendly; sociable:
a matey grin
More example sentences
Derivatives

mateyness
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪtɪnɪs/
(also matiness)
NOUN


Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid. The dictionary should always be followed. So for example, EUREKAS is valid – eureka moments are eurekas – but ‘wilcos’ and ‘cheerios’ are not valid as the dictionary does not give ‘as noun’ contexts.

Separately, recently suggested ‘paralyze’ is not valid as -YZE is the US spelling. I see no evidence that suggests -YZE is the original.

Susie has suggested (twice I think) that cheerios would be allowed

[Philip A]

What Susie said about MATIES didn't make sense.

"You can spell it EY, in the singular, MATEY, or [same] without the Y, and the regular plural for that is IES."
MATEY can also be spelt MATE, for which the plural is IES? (The subtitles said "matie" but this didn't factor into what she actually said at that point.)

"Normally with exclamations, we do allow the plural."
Since when has this been a rule? What next - normally allowing past tenses of adverbs? I would have thought the reason for allowing a plural is that it's a noun (and furthermore not marked as a mass noun).

I remain confused about what the dictionary actually says about MATY or MATIE. It would be nice if she'd actually shown us.

I agree that they should always show the relevant dictionary page to clarify definitions and contexts, like they used to with the pen-cam.

MATEY and MATY are in fact given as nouns and not exclamations. The plurals are not explicitly listed (a problem with most dictionaries), but Googling suggests that MATEYS and MATIES (as in pirate speak) are fine and therefore should be allowed, whilst ‘matys’ would look odd and ‘matie’ isn’t a word at all.


Definition of matey in English:

matey
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪti/
(also maty)
British English informal
NOUN

Used as a familiar form of address to a man:
don't worry, matey, it 's all part of my plan
that 's my seat, matey
More example sentences
ADJECTIVE (matier, matiest)

Familiar and friendly; sociable:
a matey grin
More example sentences
Derivatives

mateyness
Pronunciation: /ˈmeɪtɪnɪs/
(also matiness)
NOUN


Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid. The dictionary should always be followed. So for example, EUREKAS is valid – eureka moments are eurekas – but ‘wilcos’ and ‘cheerios’ are not valid as the dictionary does not give ‘as noun’ contexts.

Separately, recently suggested ‘paralyze’ is not valid as -YZE is the US spelling. I see no evidence that suggests -YZE is the original.

Susie has suggested (twice I think) that cheerios would be allowed

I don’t think they always check the dictionary when they suggest their own words.

[Stewart Gordon]

(As an aside, I'm puzzled at why IC isn't valid. I get the impression that Roman numerals derive from a way of marking tally sticks, whereby 17 would be IIIIVIIIIXIIIIVII, shortened to XVII. Furthermore, apparently 'subtractive' notation is actually ordinal in origin (IX meaning "the I just before the X" rather than "I subtracted from X"). But by that argument, IC should be valid.)

I could be entirely wrong here, but I always thought that you couldn't subtract a number more than one magnitude smaller than the number you're subtracting from.

I'm not puzzled at what the rule is – I'm puzzled at why the rule is that way despite what I said.

[Stewart Gordon]

Exclamations take plurals if they exist as a noun, otherwise the plural isn’t valid.

That isn't an exclamation taking a plural at all. It's a noun taking a plural.